[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mach independence

From: Ondrej Hurt
Subject: Re: Mach independence
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:52:42 +0100 (CET)

Ondrej Hurt, <address@hidden> wrote:
> What about this scenario:
> ....................

Damn I roughly repeated what had already been written here.
I should had read the mailing list archive :-/

Farid wrote:
> Since there is no way to reliably/synchroneously detect the crash
> of a potential IPC sender
> .................

There are exception handlers in L4, why shouldn't they be able to
make one notification RPC ? Because exception thread can get blocked
? Are there other reasons ?

What if the handler got blocked for veeery long, pr-server polled it
with timeout, thought it is dead and then the supposedly dead task
"ressurects" ? I think it should get deleted by the pr-server (or
something else).

Thomas wrote:
> But I fear that this kind of polling is going to be expensive.

I think that this polling could be taking place in long intervals
because it would be useful only in rare cases (exception handler got
stuck ?).

Vyberte Vas "Nejoblibenejsi automobil roku 2002 v CR"
a hlasujte na adrese http://www.autoroku.cz. Hlavni vyhra 600 000 Kc!!!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]